If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Watergate was nothing next to this. If the witnesses are powerful enough Wednesday, perhaps Obama should start worrying. It took about 3 years from the Watergate breakin til Nixon left office. Maybe if they speed it up, Obama can take an early vacation.

Originally Posted by SaintLouieWoman

Don't forget we have many Republicans with no guts. But there might be a ray of hope. I think it's going to get tougher and tougher to defend the coward in chief. In the liberal rag of a paper here there actually was an article from a lib columnist questioning Obama's dithering as far as Syria, saying it's going to be a lot tougher since he wasted so much time.

Do not get your hopes up. Watergate was minor compared to Benghazi, but it depends on your priorities. The governing class doesn't care if Americans die overseas. They do care about domestic surveillance because that impacts directly on their various lifestyle choices and activities. The American left was perfectly happy to lose in Vietnam if it meant that they would not be inconvenienced by military service, patriotic neighbors or a vibrant American culture. The left's reaction was perfectly summed up by Hillary's "What difference does it make?" comment. She didn't care, because the election was over, and the only possible fallout would be overseas, among people who don't travel in her circles. The loss of the ambassador was unfortunately, because he was the kind of person that they hobnobbed with, but he was just one egg in the progressive omelet. The left will be indifferent to this, and most Americans will not put the pieces together. Jay Carney has already stated that as far as he is concerned, it's old news. It happened "a long time ago" and on a continent far, far away.

Don't expect any help from the media. Before the election, their interest in the story was that it might interfere with Obama's reelection. Afterwards, they have shown no interest. Watergate engaged them because they were on Nixon's enemies list (yes, I know that there was no list, but it doesn't matter, because they believed that there was, and he was on theirs). Walter Chronkite devoted more time to Watergate than any other story, and he even did specials where he connected the various dots so that the average viewer had a detailed understanding of the scandal. Have you seen any major media outlet (besides Fox) publish or disseminate a timeline of the attack and the administration's response? Of course not. They've keep the dots disconnected and obscured. Outside of the intel and defense communities, there is little or not interest in the details of the attack and the response. Most people don't know how close help was, or how quickly it could have been sent. The damning story, that Obama went to bed during the attack, came and went and nobody in the MSM said anything about it. They not only don't care, but they consider those who do care to be partisan hacks, because they are. They are solely interested in the political fallout of the scandal, not the strategic issues from a resurgent al Qaeda.

An article of impeachment that passed the house would die in the senate. Harry Reid would ensure that. Oh, they might do the impeachment trial, if the Democrats thought that it would benefit them the way that the Clinton trial did (remember the Republican losses in the midterms in 1998?), but otherwise, it will be a non-starter. And remember that even if there were conclusive, damning, horrific proof of criminal acts (and lying to the American people is not a crime, in and of itself), the Democrats in the senate would still vote for acquittal, just as they did with Clinton. The same Democrats who voted to expel Bob Packwood for sexual misconduct (but broke bread daily with Teddy Kennedy), who accused Bush of lying to them about WMDs that they were screaming bloody murder about before he ever took office, who passed Obamacare without reading it and then tried to weasel out of it, those same Democrats will vote to acquit, because they don't care about the issues any more than the media does. They just care about power, and voting to acquit the guilty shows just how much power they have.

Here is how Benghazi will play out. Eventually, everyone will agree that Obama screwed it up and demonstrated a complete lack of professionalism in abandoning his people to die, and that poor Secretary of State Clinton was the administration's fall guy. This narrative will ratchet up during the 2016 presidential campaign, and will be followed by outrage on the part of the media and the Democratic Party (to the extent that there remains a separation between the two) at anyone insensitive enough to bring up this tragic failure that was laid at her feet. The media will turn on him at the very last possible minute, when it will make no difference, just as they did on Bill Clinton, and then they will gradually rehabilitate him. A decade after he leaves office, we will be hearing about what a wonderful elder statesman he is, assuming that there is still a United States to hear it.

Agreed. Any attempt to impeach Obama would be futile. However, the GOP, if it ever took it's testicles out of their pockets, could use this to derail Hillary's run in 2016. A big ad campaign would be her famous 3am phone call and they can show a phone ringing with a voice over saying something along the lines of, "At 4:30pm on 9/11/12, Sec. Clinton's phone was ringing because our consulate in Benghazi, Libya was under attack. This phone call went unanswered. If Hillary Clinton can't be trusted to answer the phone at 4:30 in the afternoon, how can we trust her to answer the phone at 3am?" And end the commercial with the phone still ringing. I think an ad campaign like that would be brilliant.

Do not get your hopes up. Watergate was minor compared to Benghazi, but it depends on your priorities. The governing class doesn't care if Americans die overseas. They do care about domestic surveillance because that impacts directly on their various lifestyle choices and activities. The American left was perfectly happy to lose in Vietnam if it meant that they would not be inconvenienced by military service, patriotic neighbors or a vibrant American culture. The left's reaction was perfectly summed up by Hillary's "What difference does it make?" comment. She didn't care, because the election was over, and the only possible fallout would be overseas, among people who don't travel in her circles. The loss of the ambassador was unfortunately, because he was the kind of person that they hobnobbed with, but he was just one egg in the progressive omelet. The left will be indifferent to this, and most Americans will not put the pieces together. Jay Carney has already stated that as far as he is concerned, it's old news. It happened "a long time ago" and on a continent far, far away.

Don't expect any help from the media. Before the election, their interest in the story was that it might interfere with Obama's reelection. Afterwards, they have shown no interest. Watergate engaged them because they were on Nixon's enemies list (yes, I know that there was no list, but it doesn't matter, because they believed that there was, and he was on theirs). Walter Chronkite devoted more time to Watergate than any other story, and he even did specials where he connected the various dots so that the average viewer had a detailed understanding of the scandal. Have you seen any major media outlet (besides Fox) publish or disseminate a timeline of the attack and the administration's response? Of course not. They've keep the dots disconnected and obscured. Outside of the intel and defense communities, there is little or not interest in the details of the attack and the response. Most people don't know how close help was, or how quickly it could have been sent. The damning story, that Obama went to bed during the attack, came and went and nobody in the MSM said anything about it. They not only don't care, but they consider those who do care to be partisan hacks, because they are. They are solely interested in the political fallout of the scandal, not the strategic issues from a resurgent al Qaeda.

An article of impeachment that passed the house would die in the senate. Harry Reid would ensure that. Oh, they might do the impeachment trial, if the Democrats thought that it would benefit them the way that the Clinton trial did (remember the Republican losses in the midterms in 1998?), but otherwise, it will be a non-starter. And remember that even if there were conclusive, damning, horrific proof of criminal acts (and lying to the American people is not a crime, in and of itself), the Democrats in the senate would still vote for acquittal, just as they did with Clinton. The same Democrats who voted to expel Bob Packwood for sexual misconduct (but broke bread daily with Teddy Kennedy), who accused Bush of lying to them about WMDs that they were screaming bloody murder about before he ever took office, who passed Obamacare without reading it and then tried to weasel out of it, those same Democrats will vote to acquit, because they don't care about the issues any more than the media does. They just care about power, and voting to acquit the guilty shows just how much power they have.

Here is how Benghazi will play out. Eventually, everyone will agree that Obama screwed it up and demonstrated a complete lack of professionalism in abandoning his people to die, and that poor Secretary of State Clinton was the administration's fall guy. This narrative will ratchet up during the 2016 presidential campaign, and will be followed by outrage on the part of the media and the Democratic Party (to the extent that there remains a separation between the two) at anyone insensitive enough to bring up this tragic failure that was laid at her feet. The media will turn on him at the very last possible minute, when it will make no difference, just as they did on Bill Clinton, and then they will gradually rehabilitate him. A decade after he leaves office, we will be hearing about what a wonderful elder statesman he is, assuming that there is still a United States to hear it.